Instant Reaction

I don't think he was referring to white politicians exploiting racial fears for votes, but black politicians:

"That anger [among blacks] may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings."

I don't remember Ferraro equating black people with the evils of the country, whereas Wright distinctly reviles the role of whites in the state of the country. I totally agree with everything Obama said, but I'm still not voting for him. Does this make a racist?

I totally agree with everything Obama said, but I'm still not voting for him. Does this make a racist?

Maybe just a goofball.

Obama did not characterize Wright's success as dependent on "exploiting fears," as he did white politicians who address the anger of whites.

No, but when he talked about the barber shops and beauty parlors, he said that people have used that anger politically. It made me think of Sharpe James in Newark.

Wright is not a politician, btw.

No, Ana, the bind that Obama's critics face is to stop shoving endless, divisive discussions of identity politics down the country's throats because bloodsport is good for ratings.

I am sure you noticed that Obama was speaking to the media as well and challenging them to talk less about what divides us and more about the common challenges we face.

I have a lot of optimism that the country is in sync with Obama's message. However, I am just as confident that the media has a vested interest in making sure that divisions persist and they keep throwing gasoline on brushfires instead of helping put them out.

The irony is that the McCarthyite media has the chutzpah to question Barack Obama's patriotism. Frankly, I question the patriotism of a media that encourages identify politics foodfights for sport and distracts us from real issues.

sorry sneaky.

However, he did talk about white politicians (and talk radio personalities) doing this too, later on in the speech.

I am sure you noticed that Obama was speaking to the media as well and challenging them to talk less about what divides us and more about the common challenges we face.

Good point, RKA.

This speech had an incredible amount of sincerity and humility. A ton of honesty. I don't buy the Republican staffer's insinuation that it is some cynical ploy.

The Republican staffer's comments illustrate more than anything how our mindset colors what we hear. The rabid Taylor Marsh commenters hated this speech as soon as they saw American flags in it. The campaigner hears positive things as saying only a vote for him is correct.

Sneaky:

I fixed the post to eliminate my (false) detection of a difference in Obama's characterization. Thanks!

For me, an Obama supporter, it was a great speech. I've said a lot of angry things about the tactics of the Clinton campaign over the past few weeks, both on blogs and in conversations with my friends.

This speech reminded me that, regardless of the outcome of this election, the effort to unify this country to solve our common problems will continue.

Obama really is asking us to focus on the things that bind us, rather than the things that separate us. And politics, and the words politicians use, are a big part of that effort.

Some people will agree with Obama, others will prefer the rhetoric of Clinton and McCain. My hope is that speech will get everyone, regardless of their political affiliation, to focus on issues and what it means to be an American.

I know that sounds soft and touchy-feely, but I don't see how we as a country can face the challenges we face if we march into the future with the same political divisions and fights that McCain and Clinton will bring us.

I am a 29 white woman who grew up in Idaho, incredibly naive about racial difference and the legacy of racism. After college, I spent 3 years in rural Mississippi teaching at an all black high school in one of the most impoverished parts of the nation.

I have lived and worked on both sides of the racial divide and have learned along the way how complicated issues of race, justice, & economic disparity intersect. I have seen fear, mistrust, and racism in the white community as well as fear, mistrust, & racism in the black community.

Obama presents some of the most honest & difficult truths I have ever heard from a politician with candor, humility, & grace.

He is not a perfect man — but he has enormous insight & wisdom. This was a courageous moment in American politics. I can’t conceive of voting for anyone else. Even if his campaign should somehow fail, I consider myself lucky to have heard this speech today & to be part of the generation that has witnessed & worked for his campaign.

AMC:

And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

Yes, he did an amazing thing. He said that people's concerns over crime, their feelings with respect to being labeled "privileged", and their issues with being used as pawns in the state's remedial efforts are legitimate, and do not require an automatic dismissal as wrong or even evidence of racism.

Amazing.

One of the things Barack didn't say, and never has, and never will, but that he knows nonetheless, is the inherent racism in his being labeled "black." He has an equal claim to being white as he has to being black. But in the persistent and uncounscious racism we have as a people, we still decide that anyone who has any black ancestry is black.

I like that he implicated of the media in the racial divisions, and then spent a lot of time discussing the nuance of the causes and effects of these divisions. This is a challenge to the media to discuss the issues rather than sensationalize the sound bites and focus on the horse race benefits of the speech.

I imagine that, in general, the media will fail to meet the challenge, but perhaps some members of the media who can be intellectually engaged will be up to the task. I'm not sure that a deep discussion of race and class as it applies to policy will help Obama as a candidate, but it is certainly a conversation worth having and as good a time as any to have it.

Here are some examples of how the media is trying to play this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_range_of_headlines.html

Look at these headlines....could they be more biased towards trying to turn unifying into divisive.

It's funny, you are going to have all these media pundits wondering "how this plays" when they are the ones who have the power to see how it plays. And so far, many of them seem eager to spin this asa dedense of wright and a list of black grievances instead of the measured and balanced speech that it really was.

People who see the speech are going to have a far more positive view of the speech that those who rely on the MSM to see the speech.

What we need to hope for is that this is youtubed endlessly and the media filter is bypassed. The problem is that the older voters who most need to hear this are also the most trusting of the spin the MSM puts on thing. And with a vested interest in conflict, you can be sure that they are going to try to take Obama's historic call for unity to paint Obama as divisive.

I know that sounds soft and touchy-feely, but I don't see how we as a country can face the challenges we face if we march into the future with the same political divisions and fights that McCain and Clinton will bring us.

I have no doubt that your touchy-feely take here is sincere, choska (I share it, to some extent), but I think it also illustrates the "bind" I was talking about: You, in this post at least, pose the choice among the candidates as, on the one hand, Obama, and on the other hand, "the same political divisions and fights."

So, a serious question: Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"? Or is the onus on McCain and Clinton to change the way they present themselves and/or their positions to become more like Obama?

I'm not trying to be snarky, am genuinely curious. Thanks...

Sad that we've reached this point. I feel that it's due to some unfortunate race baiting from his own party, but I know many others don't see it that way.

He had to acknowledge the foolish things that Wright has said, but at what point in the next 8 months of campaigning do we get to stop acting like they're the same person, and that Obama is responsible for everything Wright has ever said? McCain has been much more generous on that point then Clinton's camp has.

And who is really surprised that passionate angry speech comes up in many black churches? South Chicago isn't the hamptons. At some point, do we get to stop acting "shocked" by this fact as well?

"So, a serious question: Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"? Or is the onus on McCain and Clinton to change the way they present themselves and/or their positions to become more like Obama?"

I don't think there's an onus on them to change themselves, but I also don't think they're capable of uniting the country. It would be very very very hard for Obama to unite the country, but I perceive that at least he has a shot that the others don't. That's why I support him. Any change is good.

This is going to make one hell of a will.i.am video.

RKA - the media does seem to be spending a lot of time wondering why he didn't resign from his Church. It's apparently no fun if somebody doesn't get kicked out. I wonder if this is a byproduct of seven long years of Bush's "those who are not with us are against us" mentality, which is ready to turn any potential friend into an enemy if they don't toe the line. Of course Bush apparently didn't notice that what Jesus said was "those who are not against us are for us."

AMC,

i think the HRC campaign will just ignore this speech. That seems to be their modus operandi whenever Obama has a positive moment. There will be no way to denounce the speech without coming off as petty and potentially racist. HRC has tried to appeal to minorities, sometimes with a compelling argument, but running against Obama it is an uphill battle. Her story as a minority (a woman, if that qualifies) is a tough sell as a daughter of fairly privileged upbringing vs. the Obama story. I don't see how she can carry this argument and she will continue to try to belittle him in order to sway the undecided and independents. sidebar, why is the MSM surprised by the how the black/white vote fell in mississipi and ohio. perhaps 2 of the most racist states in the union.

Meanwhile, back at DEAN SCREAM HQ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/bill_clinton_race;_ylt=Ary6eatiEzOmyx5CQheH8FZh24cA

"NEW YORK - Former President Clinton on Monday called the notion that he unfairly criticized his wife's rival, Barack Obama, "a total myth and a mugging." Clinton had compared Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina's Jan. 26 primary to Jesse Jackson's wins in the state in 1984 and 1988.."

Oh well.

BILLARY HAPPENS.

So, a serious question: Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"? Or is the onus on McCain and Clinton to change the way they present themselves and/or their positions to become more like Obama?"

It's possible to support McCain or Clinton and think they can unify the country. You should be classified as delusional and criminally insane for doing so, but it is possible.

"...the unfair moral equivalence he implied between Wright and Ferraro or the suggestion that white men voting for McCain do so because they are trapped in old resentments..."

His almost unflinching clinging to the Wright wing of the Howard Dean University BLAME WHITE AMERICA FIRST crowd will NOT cut it in the general election.

And have we heard the feedback from the conservative Hispanic voters, yet?

I fail to see any great difference between Wright, Farrakhan, Bin Laden, and Hitler, political truth be told.

Guess who said the following Quote:

"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."

Answer: Rev. John Haggee (McCain supporter)

When can we expect the McCain speech about homophobia and intolerance?

It's possible to support McCain or Clinton and think they can unify the country. You should be classified as delusional and criminally insane for doing so, but it is possible.

Is it possible, just for f--king two more minutes, to contemplate the meaning-- the actual meaning --of what the guy just said?

Can we have the decency to lay off of whatever partisan ax we have to grind, so that we can spend a moment imagining that we actually live in the country that Barack Obama just described?

Can we do that?

Ana - great question. I think you can believe that Hillary and McCain have a vision for America which will be so positive that we'll all come together in support of it. But their campaigns seem to be based on "fighting." You might as well ask if it's okay for an Obama supporter to believe we have to "fight" the special interests, which of course we can, and which in fact Barack has said he would do. There is a difference in emphases in these campaigns, and the candidates have chosen these differences.

I agree with everything Elena says......and I am a white woman in Alabama over the age of 50 - so I have seen and felt segregation. I will be proud to vote for Senator Obama in November.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/bill_clinton_race;_ylt=Ary6eatiEzOmyx5CQheH8FZh24cA

Good to see BJ Clixon keeping himself center stage, again.

McCain Fluffer.

You'll never see that speech.

You'll never see the MSM point out that after Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on the gays that JOhn McCain flip flopped on whether he was an agent of intolerance and went to speak at Falwell's university.

The media won't demand the same standard for McCain as for Obama.

After all, how can you expect the media to be critical of someone who holds such great barbeques?

That would be rude, you know?

Instant reax: great speech; I liked the line about Wright: "He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years." Very Whitman via Langston Hughes.

Interestingly, the speech isn't necessarily "about" race; it's more "about" race as a category that is sort of an economic epiphenomenon. In other words, we're not going to "solve" racism simply by talking about race and discussing our experiences as mediated through race, but rather with economic policy that breaks the oligarchic stranglehold & upward re-distribution of wealth that we've seen since around 1973.

Clinton is in no position to try to unify the country in any way, let alone along racial lines. She has already decided that whole American populations simply don't count. All she can really do is nip at Obama's heels. That's not to say Obama was presenting a choice of "unify with me or go be divided with Clinton"; I think your Republican operative friend was whistled up a pretty bogus framework. That said, Obama certainly drew distinctions: that is, between himself and the would be corporatist oligarchs. Fair play to him on that front, since neither of them is in any position to lay into Wall Street like he did today.

Dear Stuart Zechman:

No.

"I fail to see any great difference between Wright, Farrakhan, Bin Laden, and Hitler, political truth be told."

You fail to see the difference between Rev. Wright and Adolf Hitler? Stop commenting here. You're not even a serious person.

I see.

When John McCain fought in Vietnam (like 2 million brave others), he fought for ALL Americans.

Where, and when, exactly, have either Skippy Obama or Cowgirl Clinton EVER really put their cheese on the line, for somebody else's benefit?

Cutting a pro bono check to the CDF or Sierra Club IS not a "sacrifice" or "experience" that differentiates these liberal, race baiting dweebs, sorry Time Lifers.

KathyR--

This is a very complicated question. So I hope you forgive me if I go on at some length.

First, because of research done in the human genome and studies of the genetic make up of human populations that 1) all humans are descendants of Africans and 2) that race is a socio-cultural, not a biological phenomenon.

This was a problem for the pre-civil war and the Jim Crow south, because if they were going to segregate black people, they had to define who they were. The usual definition was that if you had one black great-grandparent, you were black. (You should note that this doesn't work all the time. Consider Slave Abigail, who is the great-grandmother of Betty and the only slave in Bett's family tree. Then Betty is black, but her daughter Carol is not.)

Obama, by that definition, is black, just like Derek Jeter is black, (but David Ortiz is hispanic). Worse, Obama has no slaves in his family tree, unlike his wife, which complicates his American identity still further, because the definition of Negro that was used to segregate was really about being descended from slaves.

We're at a point of transition away from this definition, with the Census Bureau permitting "mixed race" as a designation. But it still holds, almost all the time, that any black heritage makes you black.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of people in this country identified as black (and, if you're family came here in the early 18th century or before, a large fraction identified as white) is of mixed race. Just like Michelle Obama.

This is part of what he is talking about, and part of what the generation under 25 who've grown up watching the Real World is gonna change.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

Link to Obama speech text, fyi.

s_z,

I couldn't agree with your request more. In addition to the partisan poo-slinging of the supporters, it would be nice if the media would take a minute/hour/day to actually discuss what Senator Obama said rather than running it through their political grinder to add a link to the horse race sausage (apologies for my metaphor running away from me).

It's embarrassing to see a long, thought-out, complex attempt to deal with race for all Americans as more than fits of irrational anger, gut feelings and sound bites, being instantly swallowed up by the instinct to do exactly the opposite.

We also have to remember that Clinton is taking part in this "growing racial divide" we keep hearing about in the campaign. Black voters are starting to wonder just how much she values them. They're not an insignificant bloc in the Dem Party.
By the way, as a small stater, I'm wondering how much she values me. She seems to think that NY, CA and Florida are pretty cool. My state has been deemed insignificant by her lackeys.

I sure hope both the parents of Obamama have already gone to meet their maker after he threw his grandmother under the bus like that.

It's possible to support McCain or Clinton and think they can unify the country.

Sadly, there are few emotions more instantly gratifying that righteous indignation. And I dare say few things drive both out politics and the coverage of it than that need for instant gratification.

That Obama can do as well as he has so far in that environment just speaks volumes of how utterly tired of Rovian thinking many of us have become.

Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"? Or is the onus on McCain and Clinton to change the way they present themselves and/or their positions to become more like Obama?

I think Clinton has already done this--especially if she gets credit for Bill's term of office, and can be expected to continue to do this in the Senate or in the Presidency. As Obama said, advocating for SCHP is advocating for access to health care for black kids. Advocating for education, same thing. I think she can easily walk into Calvin Butts' church, and be welcome, and participate.

She may be pursuing the Reagan Democrats, but she need not adopt Republican tactics of division to do so. Obama recognized this by dismissing Ferraro's talk as a "gaffe," implicitly blaming the media for creating a substanceless distraction.

For McCain, this is impossible. This is not part of his campaign's message. If he were to reach out to heal racial divides, his base would not show up at the polls.

via atrios, the speech is up online now.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBbKG

jayack,

I'd like to expand on what you said regarding "blackness."

First of all, being black in America (or probably anywhere else) is as much about how people react to you, and treat you, as about your ancestry. If you look "black" then you will be treated accordingly and thus have the experience of being a black person.

Second, in you example, Betty is black, so her daughter Carol would then be so as well. In fact, according to your definition, ALL descendents of balck people are black.

Third, in the US, for census purposes at least, Hispanic is not a separate category, in the sense that Hispanics are still classified as being either black or white.

Stolen to reveal truths:

Many white men voting for McCain do so because they are trapped in old resentments.

That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of black co-workers or female friends. But it does find voice in the locker room or around the bar. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings, such as this here.

@Malcom: I was once speaking to my father in law.

"John," he said, "Out of all of my grandchildren, yours are the most polite."

"Well, thank you," I said.

"Yeah, it's not like when your sister-in-law brought home a N**ger just to rile me up."

"You know, I don't want you saying that around my children - are we cool?" I looked at him awhile.

"Sorry - I forget you young folk think differently about that."

I guess I just threw my father-in-law under the bus as well. Sorry that even mentioning that a person has a personal fault is "throwing them under the bus". Sorry that saying that a generation of difference exists, that people have opinions and beliefs that others consider to be wrong, and that we shouldn't hide them away - but address them head-on, so we can solve them.

I guess that Barack should be sorry for pointing out that people - even the ones we love - can have faults. What was he thinking.

jayackroyd, ultimately I agree with your point on HRC, but I believe part of the issue with her persona is that fact that she repeatedly focuses on attacking, going after the other guy, republican or democrat. She has some great views on topics like healthcare, children, and education, but she thinks so strongly about them she will go so far as ignore another's viewpoint rather than discuss, debate and compromise.

She too often comes across as my way or the highway rather than trying to build collaboration. Of course thats just my honest opinion.

And in terms of McCain, you are spot on.

Posted by jayackroyd | March 18, 2008 12:57 PM:

For McCain, this is impossible. This is not part of his campaign's message. If he were to reach out to heal racial divides, his base would not show up at the polls.

jayackroyd:

If there was any Republican candidate who could do this, it would be John McCain.

The "Straight Talk Express" could do some straight talk of his own, just the way Obama did. His base is the media, and he knows this. If he were to actually address his party's problems with African-Americans, even if it was an attempt, he would have the entire punditocracy swooning in a heartbeat.

This is the guy who's for a path to citizenship, remember?

If John McCain were to come on out with a try at a speech that attempted to come to grips with these issues-- and included straight talk to and about this party-- wouldn't you try to listen to it with open ears? Especially after Obama's speech?

John, it's so true, for those of us of Generation X and younger, we just think very differently. Even my parents - hispanic immigrants have very strong views of gays which I won't tolerate, but it was how they were raise. Barack made a very honest point about that generational difference that many of us under-40ish who are very well aware of but accept because our parents and grandparents grew up in different times.

But if anything, Barack has shown, it's not about being PC but about confronting the fact we do have different perspectives but can accept each other in this country.

Speaking of McCain, Michael Shear (McC BBQ) and Cameron Barr report:

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."

I think he just crossed back over the threshold, living Clinton as the only one prepared to be CinC.

He came back and corrected his error, but to get something this basic wrong (al-qaeda is Sunni, hates shi-ites, comes from Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia) speaks to a shocking ignorance.

No doubt David Broder will find this to be refreshing bipartisan candor about his ignorance.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

And, BTW, this is not a gaffe. A gaffe is getting al Sistani's name wrong. Ford knew better when he said that Poland wasn't under Soviet control.

Ana,

I want to address the feeling you and your friend have that "there's an implicit corollary: The way to show that you've moved beyond racism is to support him"

Well, Ana, Obama explicitly rejected that implicit corollary in his News Hour interview yesterday:

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-interview-on-newshour/

" So, ultimately, the question for the American people is, who do they think is best equipped to actually solve the problems that we face right now? And if you as a voter, regardless of your race or gender, decide that it’s Senator Clinton, then you should vote for Senator Clinton. If it’s me, you should vote for me. And if it’s John McCain, you should vote for John McCain."

So, while you and others may "feel" like you are being rhetorically blackmailed into supporting Obama or you don't support improving race relationships, your feelings/implicit corrolaries have no basis in fact and are explicitly contradicted by Obama, who is saying that if you agree with HIllary or McCain on the issues or think they are the best prepared, vote for them regardless of your own race or gender.

You have to put in context that Obama making this speech on race is him responding to the injection of race into the primary by others, not him making a premeditated affirmitive case to vote for him to achieve racial unity. To suggest that this is the case is to grossly distort the core of Obama's candidacy and message.

John Hummel,
I was joking. My Sicilian grandmother used to refer to African-Americans as "darkies." There was just no point in even trying to correct her.

"If there was any Republican candidate who could do this, it would be John McCain."

I think it's going to be tough for McCain to unite the country on anything (racial, social, economic, political) if he's constantly trying to take us to war. Blowing stuff up and getting people killed has a tendency to exacerbate pre-existing rifts in society.

@Malcom: My bad then - I've been seeing crap from "Oh, now he's lying - he was in church" to "OMG - he just admitted he's black THE RACE IS OVER!"

I think we all need sarcasm tags sometimes ;).

I thought it was a great speech. The only thing that concerns me is how many people actually saw it? It seemed to me that the arguments that he was making were fairly sophisticated and not easily broken into ten second sound bites. That will make it harder for them to bounce around the echo chamber and reach the swing voters they need to reach.

JayAckroyd: Thanks for your exposition. When I reread my comment I thought maybe I hadn't managed to convey what I wanted to, which is more along the lines of what you said. I meant that the nature of who Barack is makes it especially clear that race is a socio-cultural phenomenon rather than a biological one, and that Barack is black by the old "definition," as you put it, and that a lot of stuff comes with the whole package of that definition. It's clear that Barack Obama has struggled with all of this (clear especially from "Dreams from my Father"), and that he has a vision of our being increasingly able to move past that. That people are more interested in supporting Barack the younger they are gives me hope.

Side note:

"But most people aren't as tuned to insults as campaign staff -- the unfair moral equivalence he implied between Wright and Ferraro or the suggestion that white men voting for McCain do so because they are trapped in old resentments."

*sigh* He didn't say that *all* white men vote for McCain, or even most, because of ethnic reasons. But lets face it - it's just as wrong for someone to vote for Clinton *only* because she's a woman, for McCain *only* because they are white, and for Obama *only* because they are black.

That was the issue that Obama was trying to raise - not that people just vote for McCain just because he's a white guy - but that there are some who will, and we need to move beyond that. I'm sorry that your Republican friend got it so wrong, because my coworkers (who are also Republicans) got his message just fine.

Second, in you example, Betty is black, so her daughter Carol would then be so as well.

No, Malcolm, by that generation the "taint" would have been erased. But, to go back to your other point, your family would have been passing long before then.

On the hispanic business, thanks very much. I didn't realize how complicated it had gotten.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0006.pdf

Which sorta makes the same point.

"If there was any Republican candidate who could do this, it would be John McCain."

All the more reason to conclude that he doesn't wanna....

Every time McCain's made an adjustment to his position it has been in the direction of further kowtowing to the rabid right. The large number of American's who are unaware of this are direct victims of the complicit press in ignoring the connection and playing up the differences between him and the R base.

"I don't think he was referring to white politicians exploiting racial fears for votes, but black politicians:

"That anger [among blacks] may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings."

...

He was obviously referring to the Kennedy family.

Or the Clinton family.

Better ask the mutual Lieberrys to FINALLY open their stunted archives, just to be extra double secret spiked racist twerp probation certain though.

Happy St. Patty's Hangover!

So, a serious question: Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"? Or is the onus on McCain and Clinton to change the way they present themselves and/or their positions to become more like Obama?

I do not.

Clinton's whole campaign is the our states plus one, the republican's whole platform is "we must resist scary brown people."

Also, I think it takes a black politician to speak honestly on racial issues. It cannot come from a white, wealthy, privileged Washington insider. Even if they mean it and they're honest about it, it sounds like they are condescending. Maybe that's not fair, but I think that's the way it is.

I think Obama is unique in that he can say some of the hard things to both sides. That's a good thing for the country. IMHO.

So, while you and others may "feel" like you are being rhetorically blackmailed into supporting Obama or you don't support improving race relationships, your feelings/implicit corrolaries have no basis in fact and are explicitly contradicted by Obama, who is saying that if you agree with HIllary or McCain on the issues or think they are the best prepared, vote for them regardless of your own race or gender.

You have a good point, except that I guess I find it hard to believe that Obama doesn't recognize that his rhetoric may instill these "feelings" in others. That he rejects the binaries that his speech implies is admirable, and I believe that he does not want to be the beneficiary of a negative choice, as in, "I don't want to be considered a racist, so I'll vote for Obama." But it's reactions like those in this very thread that make me think that at least part of his appeal is grounded in the idea that "voting for Obama=I'm part of a movement that will eliminate racism," which is, let's face it, a strong appeal. My only concern is that it is very easy to slip from "supporting Obama will help eliminate racism" to "not supporting Obama means you want to preserve racism." He doesn't have to push voters into that thought, but he also can't really stop them from going there.

But the only way to make sure that Obama's vision doesn't die with his candidacy (should his candidacy die) is to continue to provoke discussions like this one, which asks people to examine their own reactions to race and to rhetoric about it. At least I hope that's what we're doing.

Okay, I'm off to the gym so have to bow out for a bit.

This is really interesting. Thanks for participating.

I apologize for reposting this on a different post, but I originally added this comment to the first post on Obama's speech, which nobody is reading anymore:

'Excellent speech. I can't wait for the Clinton campaign's reply.

For the most part he did what he needed to do with this speech, but it may not help him - in fact, it may backfire since I'm sure Rethugs will selectively quote from it out of context.

He wisely spent sometime addressing the concerns of whites, but also did his usual demagoging on globalization.

I know this is a minor part, and really there's no other way he could express this and hope to have a chance with Jewish (or even many Christian) voters, but one line really offended me:
"a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

Now, jayack above mischaracterized Obama as saying that Wright,
"Blames Israel instead of radical islam for radical islam."

But Obama wasn't just talking about radical Islam, he was talking more generally about "the conflicts in the Middle East," which started long before radicalization took hold (e.g., the PLO used to be a secular organization). A large portion of the conflict in the Middle East goes back to the creation of Israel, which involved the seizure of Palestinian lands, an action taken by our now (but not then) stalwart ally.

Posted by Malcolm | March 18, 2008 12:14 PM'

It's worth noting that one thing Obama was trying to do (or wanted to be perceived trying to do) is encourage discussions like this.

Thanks Malcolm. I didn't realize I was wasting my time doing that because Jay had posted the text, and I appreciate your fixing that inaccurate summary.

by our now (but not then) stalwart ally

Great Britain?

Lot of great comments in this diary.

When I hear Obama's speaches I always respond well to his call for unity when I think he's talking about the ridiculous racial (hey, Malcolm, I typed "facial" before I caught my mistake)divides that plague this country and cause real harm to our nation.

But, political divisions, that is disagreements between people who truly believe polar opposite things about the role of government in the economy or our personal lives, are legitimate and no politician can change the other side's opinion. Depending on who is in power at the time good compromises can be hammered out that leave a majority of Americans satisfied, but there will always be large chunks of folks who hate those compromises and will do everything in their power to see they don't happen.

There will be no pleasing social conservatives. However, just as the left has lost the gun-control battle (both Obama and HRC have publicly expressed support for the Second Amendment) I do believe the right is on the cusp of losing the gay rights and abortion argument because of the state of the economy. Most Americans will want their Washington representatives to talk about what they will do for the voters in real terms so I think the "moral" equation will be diminished.

But there are real progressive issues I want to see pressed in Washington (health insurance for one). KathyR makes an interesting point about "fighting" but I think the real crux is defining what a "special" interest is.

Nothing I have heard from Obama has reassured me that he will risk "unity" to fight tooth and nail for health insurance. I know some of you will say "look at what refusing to compromise got HRC the first time". But I also believe we are way beyond baby steps when it comes to solving the problem of health insurance, both in terms of people being covered and the drain it puts on small businesses to cover their employees. Things have gotten so bad we need the radical surgery.

The great irony would be for Obama to get elected and in four years time we have not progressed any further when it comes to dealing with the problems of the twenty-first century because we comprosised ourselves out of real solutions and kept the status quo in order to ensure bi-partisanship.

jayack,

This is what you said (which is how it is commonly expressed), "The usual definition was that if you had one black great-grandparent, you were black."

So my point was valid: Abigail (and presumably her ancestors as well) was black. Thus her children were black, since they had black great-grandparents (Abigail's grandparents), and her grandchildren were black, since they had black great-grandparents (Abigail's parents), and finally Betty is black, because Abigail is her great-grandparent. But then Carol's great-grandparent is Abigail's child, who as I've pointed out is black, so Carol is black, being the great-grandchild of a black person.

But you're right in that in practice this won't matter once the appearance is completely "white."

"So, a serious question: Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"?

Let's cut to the heart of the McCain hero story. McCain was dropping bombs on what he called "Gooks." He was imprisoned and tortured by Gooks. He still hates the Gooks. Vietnam was partly a racist war, and McCain's implicit glorification of the killing of 2,000,000 Gooks provides a powerful attraction to Bush's 30%.

Less than 24 hours after stories ran about Sen. John McCain’s statement to reporters that he would continue to refer to his Vietnamese wartime captors as “gooks,” his campaign announced Feb. 18 that he would no longer use that term. Three days later McCain issued an official apology.

Several stories that ran last Friday quoted McCain as saying “I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live… I was referring to my prison guards and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend.”

But after APIs blasted his unabashed use of the highly derogatory term that has historically been used against Asians and Asian Americans, the campaign made an apology after annoucing that McCain would no longer use the racial slur.

“I will continue to condemn those who unfairly mistreated us,” McCain said in a statement released Feb. 21. “But out of respect to a great number of people for whom I hold in very high regard, I will no longer use the term that has caused such discomfort… I apologize and renounce all language that is bigoted and offensive, which is contrary to all that I represent and believe.”

Source: http://asianweek.com/2000_02_24/feature_mccainapology.html

It's worth noting that one thing Obama was trying to do (or wanted to be perceived trying to do) is encourage discussions like this.

Excellent point, Jay.

I thought the speech was a home run. Reminded me of Robert Kennedy.

ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE PROVEN YOU SHOULD BE PRESIDENT08.

TO ALL THE ONES WHO CAN NOT AT LEAST SAY YOU GAVE AN EXCELLENT SPEECH, THAT WE SHOULD COME TOGETHER. THAT THEY TOO WANT TO UNITE.

IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR WORDS. THEY HAVE HATE IN THEIR HEART!!! AND WE NEED TO PRAY FOR THEM.

THIS ELECTION IS NOT WHAT WE LIKE OR DISLIKE ABOUT HILLARY OR OBAMA. THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR PARTY IN THE WHITEHOUSE. LET'S COME TOGETHER!!!

Abigail (and presumably her ancestors as well) was black.

I purposely said "slave" actually, because I was also trying to convey that this was really about being descended from slaves--and this also enters into the way Obama fits into American racial sterotyping, because his ancestral experience does not include slavery and Jim Crow.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, otherwise. But I'll just add that the one great grandparent rule makes no sense if the real definition is any ancestor.

The consideration in the first paragraph is non-trivial, BTW. I did some work for Wilson Goode's administration. The staff was largely black, but the senior staff included a number of foreign born people. There was resentment among the civil service staff that these jobs went to Ghanians and Jamaicans.

HH@
McCain can't even get his racial slurs for Asians correct. "Gook" derives from the Korean word for country (Guk) and is used in the (South) Korean words for Korea (hanguk) and America (miguk).

stuart_zechman writes:

"Yes, he did an amazing thing. He said that people's concerns over crime, their feelings with respect to being labeled "privileged", and their issues with being used as pawns in the state's remedial efforts are legitimate, and do not require an automatic dismissal as wrong or even evidence of racism."

I'm sorry if you're already over this quote, stuart, but i took away a different meaning from this quote, which may help the overall discussion.

I think Obama was not condoning racist thoughts, but acknowledging that they often spring from real concerns, whether it's about the economy, or about pop culture, or whatever. For example, economic fears (a legitimate fear) often give rise to racist thoughts/statements against blacks/mexicans (an illegitimate fear).

If one knows anything of the research in social psychology, one knows that racism often occurs implicitly, sometimes beyond a person's awareness. I can delve into this deeper if you like, but I want to keep the post from being too long. Anyway, with this implicit process constantly at work, it is relatively common for individuals to make sense of negative events by scapegoating another culture, or by being manipulated into scapegoating another culture. Hitler scapegoated the Jews with much success for the failures of World War 1, the U.S. scapegoated resident Muslims for the work of a small band of terrorists, and Blacks and Mexicans continue to receive blame for taking jobs away from whites ("it's not the economy, it's those [enter ethnic group here]").

That Obama recognizes how racism takes shape is, in my view, an illustration of insight and honesty.

jayack@
But if the rule had "slave great-grandparent" instead of "black great-grandparent," after a few generations after the Civil War, no one would be black in America. (But maybe still in Sudan.)

This is similar to the legal definition of being Italian. If you have a parent who was Italian at the time of your birth, then you are Italian. But then, the same would be true for your parent, and your parent's parent, and so on; thus everyone who is descended from an Italian is legally Italian. (It's actually slightly more complicated than this because until 1948 Italian citizenship could only be passed down from a father, the basic idea is the same.)

Meanwhile, over at the Corner they're saying that Obama's speech proves he's been a commie all along:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/through_the_looking_glass.php

Because of personal family history, I have always found the issue of when a person of mixed ethnic heritage become "white" very interesting and aggravating.

My great-grandmother's second husband's father was white and his mother black. He was very light skinned and could easily pass as some kind of Cajun/Creole/French/Spanish blend, and he did. Pass. For their entire, long married life he passed as white, meaning both she and he were breaking the laws of Mississippi and risking terrible consequences if found out. They had no children of their own and I've often wondered if that was intentional.

My grandfather made sure his children and his children's children understood the horror of racism. He himself kept the secret about his beloved step-father for years, not telling anyone until he met my grandmother, who then kept the family secret.

Sooner or later, having "black" skin has to mean no more than my having red hair, a trait I inherited from a long-dead ancestor from Scotland.

mpizzle@
Stewie may have been reading a little too much into Obama's comments (since his paraphrase sounds suspiciously like the point he always tries to make when someone accuses Clinton of playing the race card), but Obama did after all say this:
"when they'e told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time." Here he specifically indicates that such people are being unfairly labeled as racist.

probably, although I was doing some generational arithmetic assuming this was happening in the 50s. So I miswrote when I put down slave, but I was trying to identify the moment a real african entered the family tree.

But what the segregationists in the south were trying to do is codify the social rule in some way. The rule makes no sense if you can't ever have become white in some generation.

Of course, in practice, you're white when you can pass. (I was recently surprised to discover that Winsor McKay was probably black. Krazy Kat reads differently with that bit of knowledge, but not in the bad way that seeing Manhattan changes post Soon-Yi.)

Yes, it is certainly quite a speech. But then Mr Obama is quite a man.

This is a man whose past we can only begin to guess at, that now and then reveals disturbing and now even sinister details (the Rezko connection, the Wright virulent hitlerian demagogy).

We can guess that this man, half-white-half-black and abandoned by his Black father and brought up in a white family, has had great trouble with his identity. His autobiography indicated that.

I haven't been impressed by the quality of his prose. It feeds off those hectoring, simplistic best-selling American self-help books: YOU CAN DO IT IF YOU TRY, I'M OK, YOU'RE OK, THE SECRET OF SUCCESS IS HOPE, etc.

Obama seems to have had the intelligence to see that these simplistic slogans appeal to Americans, and he has built his campaign out of them. The most useful thing about the Obama slogans is that they are so lethally reversible: if anyone goes against him, like the Clintons, he can always ask them with astonished indignation: SO YOU DENY WE CAN DO IT IF WE TRY? YOU DON'T AGREE HOPE BRINGS SUCCESS? Etc. Hard, very hard, to reply to that, as poor Hillary knows only too well.

Obama sat in a church for 23 years, was a very very close frioend of its pastor, who did not make ferociously anti-American sermons just once when Mr Obama was not in the congregation. That is what Obma's speech implies.

Well, we will see if that will pass.

It takes incredible effrontery on Obama's part, and mindless marshmallow naivete on the American public's part, to conclude from his slick, calculated, cunning, evasive speech that to redeem American racism we have to vote for a him, a man who subjected his own daughters to years of attendance in a church run by a pastor with the most virulent race-hate views.

America may simply decide: Yes, Obama is a tormented soul and we forgive him. We are deeply sorry for him. But we would prefer somebody simpler and more easily understood as President.

What a fabulous speech. It was truly remarkable and am so glad that I was able to read the text although I didn't get to see the delivery. It is a start.

In answer to AMC question 'Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"? I wholeheartedly respond "YES"! I am a Clinton supporter who is a post-graduate who still has hope that this country can make changes that help ALL Americans. Unfortunately, I have heard little from BO that tells me HOW and what policies he endorses that will make the changes. Clinton talks about policy, BO does not. That is why I support her. It disturbs me that since race has become an issue in this nomination battle, that all of the good policy work that Clinton has fought for has been dismissed. I am also disturbed by the racism that continues to divide our country and that we keep talking about the problem yet fail to have a real conversation about the problem or talk about solutions.

A real conversation requires listening to all sides of the argument, not just one. From JP's blog: "Obama likened Wright to his crazy uncle, or more to the point, our crazy uncle, and compared him with his own grandmother, who he heard make bigoted statements about blacks and others. (This is probably his toughest task. On the one hand, a lot of people can relate to disagreeing with their clergy's politics. On the other hand, you can't pick your grandma; you can pick your pastor. Also, there are plenty of people out there who would want him to describe, say, accusing the government of giving black people AIDS as something stronger than "divisive.")" I think that political correctness in our society has kept us from having a real discussion and seriously challenging statements from those in leadership in the black community that continue to blame our government for things like "giving black people AIDS." Until Black leaders dismiss those kinds of statements outright and stop pussy-footing around them, we will never get past them. Having left a church where the pastor said some inflammatory things, I do know that it is a choice to stay or go.

Understanding the history of racism and the plight of blacks in America is important. And with that understanding, we must change policies that continue to entrench many in poverty and work to improve daily life for not only blacks, but ALL Americans. From Obama's speech: "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race." This is the part I most identified with and appreciated from his speech. My parents certainly didn't seem to benefit from being white and I have worked since in high school and all three of my degrees. It is and was hard to scrape by despite all of my education. I don't know that I have heard a Black politician or any leader for that matter, ever give word to the other side of the race fence. Policies that help all communities have access to and afford healthy foods, that allow them healthcare so that they grow healthy bodies and healthy kids, and make higher education a priority (not just a dream) will help ALL Americans. This will go a long way toward changing our future.

AMC question: 'Or is the onus on McCain and Clinton to change the way they present themselves and/or their positions to become more like Obama?' YES, this too. Rather than spending time denying supporters comments were racist, why not talk about what policies they will support that lift up ALL Americans and highlight those in answer to how we solve the problem or racism in America. Clinton has some good policy ideas about how to change things, she should talk about those in answer the questions. I do not, however, believe that McCain has any solutions to the problems of average Americans.

Until BO stops talking about the problem and starts talking about the real footwork of solutions, then I will continue to be a Clinton supporter. I want him to "walk the talk."

J.J.@
"Meanwhile, over at the Corner they're saying that Obama's speech proves he's been a commie all along."

Wait, I thought Hillary was the pinko subversive. I'm confused.

I grew up in the whitest state of the Union (Maine).

My brother's wife is Puerto Rican. Her mom is a strawberry blond from MA, while her dad, Ramon, is from PR.

When my grandmother met Ramon the first time, as soon as he'd left the room, she said "I never thought he would be so dark."

As Obama said, this is all very much part of today's society, and it's well past time to confront the issues directly.

re the Corner reaction--

Yes, this will bring them out in their full, intolerant glory.

And Howie will decide this is not the week to quote them.

The fact we're even discussing what some preacher said once when we're nearing the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion and entering the worst financial crisis in a generation tells you everything you need to know about the state of the country.

What an awful, awful joke our political system is. People care more about what Obama's preacher said than about their own jobs, their own tax dollars, and when they're own kids are getting back from Iraq.

What more needs to be said here?

Obama is the slickest confidence trickster there is.

Caught out redhanded in decades of the closest association with an applling race-hate demogogue who he calls his "spiritual mentor", he blandly, smoothly croons - Yes, folks, and I invite you to address the issue of racism!

It's like a rapist caught in the act who chuckles, "Aha ! I invite us all to tackle the problems of violence against women!"

Slick !!!!!

mpizzle:

I disagree. Barack Obama specifically says that these concerns are not to be dismissed as "racist thoughts", but are to be treated as legitimate issues:

(from his Philadelphia speech today)
...to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns, this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

He's specifically saying that not all of the issues that have been immediately flagged by well-meaning people concerned with racial justice as embodying racism are to be considered as such. Instead of rejecting these concerns as fundamentally flawed reactively with respect to their sources, Barack Obama suggests that we need to deepen our understanding those concerned, and base our judgments on the merits of individual arguments.

While I don't discount lack of awareness as a culprit in terms of tendencies to scapegoat, and I believe that he did refer to such phenomena as one of many interrelated problems to be recognized and overcome, I don't see how such recognition cancels or even modifies the blunt, unambiguous acceptance of non-African-American concerns, and acknowledgment that to address these issues is not necessarily and certainly not automatically to articulate racism.

I believe that Barack Obama was superbly unambiguous on that point.

jayack@
"But what the segregationists in the south were trying to do is codify the social rule in some way. The rule makes no sense if you can't ever have become white in some generation."

Who ever said "segregationists in the south" were logical?

Snoopy,

what issues has Clinton taken a clear position on that OBama has not?

LOL Malcolm. Let's leave it at that.

applling race-hate demogogue
like a rapist caught in the act

Good thing there's no race-hate happening here.

I'd be worried if there were.

Now is a good time to listen the Frank Zappa classic "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing" if you ask me.

Stu,
I take back my mild dig at you in my earlier post. The quote you give is more comprehensive than the one that I cited.

Snoopy: Unfortunately, I have heard little from BO that tells me HOW and what policies he endorses that will make the changes.

The intertubes has some stuff:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

TomT, I agree.

I said in an earlier post that I think the hard economic times will help put in context issues like abortion and gay marriage. The majority of Americans are not going to care about those things and will be listening to every speech a candidate gives to see what he/she has to say about the economy.

The majority of Americans are not going to care about those things and will be listening to every speech a candidate gives to see what he/she has to say about the economy.

Sadly, though, the punditocracy is too well off to care much about the economy. And learning about the economy is hard work, as the cowboy king they elected likes to say.

No, Brooks and Klein and Halperin and all the rest would rather yak about about Reverend Wright than about President Wrong.

And, of course, what digby said:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/race-and-campaign-by-dday-i-want-to.html

First, great speech. I doubt it will help in the general election, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a great speech.

"Do you think it's possible for someone to be a supporter of McCain or Clinton and still be devoted to the "effort to unify this country to solve our common problems"? Or is the onus on McCain and Clinton to change the way they present themselves and/or their positions to become more like Obama?"

It's fascinating how we're all still accepting the narrative that Clinton will do anything to win, at the exact moment where her campaign is being very nice and classy about the whole Wright issue. If she were a genuinely divisive person who didn't care about uniting the country, she'd be exploiting this all the way to the White House. And if the situations were reversed, the MSM would be saying that this proves Obama knows how to unite people.

As a Clinton supporter, I do care about unifying the country. So yes, it's possible. But I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Obama is the best person to unify the country as President. He is very gifted at eloquently expressing what we all have in common. But the real unifying work of government is bridging disagreements. Unfortunately, he has little record of succeeding in this less glamorous and less uplifting, but ultimately even more essential kind of unifying.